[Xiaolongnu]

North opens 1♣, Pass, South 1♦, overcall 1♠, North did not see the overcall and IB'ed 1♠. North told the Director that she did not notice the 1♠ overcall and meant to show real 4 card spade. It is not certain whether this sequence demands a more distributional hand since the field routinely mess up their walshness, whatever their agreement might have been.

In whatever system they might be playing however, it is clear that 27B1a does not apply. The Director considered a lenient interpretation of 27B1b in that both bids showed what could reasonably be known as a spade suit, and ruled as such. The Director was fully aware that this might have been exceedingly lenient and meant to be such, he has always been exceedingly lenient in technicalities to these club players, on grounds of compassion and empathy, and in an effort of making bridge more of an enjoyable pastime and less of a petty struggle.

Is this ruling appropriately lenient, a little too lenient or unacceptably exceedingly lenient, in the context of this field, and in bridge in general?

Edit: Sorry, apparently I have stupidly missed out the crucial point. The Director considered 1NT to be an acceptable replacement call under 27B1b and offered North a choice to bid that without further rectification. The logic is that since 1NT showed a spade stop, that is similar to a spade suit, which was the intended meaning of the IB. Fully aware that a spade stop is different from a spade suit, but as I said, the field is one that you would want to encourage bridge as a fun pastime rather than a petty struggle. Do you agree with the Director, namely, me? The question I am really asking is whether this is too excessively lenient in spite of the fact that we should be less strict on "the elderly, infirmed and inexperienced" for which most in the field satisfy at least two out of three.

Edit 2: Changed satisfy two out of three to satisfy at least two out of three, to gain some sympathy for the extent to which I am thrown in.

[pran]

Xiaolongnu, on 2013-February-01, 00:46, said:

North opens 1♣, Pass, South 1♦, overcall 1♠, North did not see the overcall and IB'ed 1♠. North told the Director that she did not notice the 1♠ overcall and meant to show real 4 card spade. It is not certain whether this sequence demands a more distributional hand since the field routinely mess up their walshness, whatever their agreement might have been.

In whatever system they might be playing however, it is clear that 27B1a does not apply. The Director considered a lenient interpretation of 27B1b in that both bids showed what could reasonably be known as a spade suit, and ruled as such. The Director was fully aware that this might have been exceedingly lenient and meant to be such, he has always been exceedingly lenient in technicalities to these club players, on grounds of compassion and empathy, and in an effort of making bridge more of an enjoyable pastime and less of a petty struggle.

Is this ruling appropriately lenient, a little too lenient or unacceptably exceedingly lenient, in the context of this field, and in bridge in general?

What ruling? You didn't tell which replacement call North selected or which partnership understanding existed on that replacement call (absent the IB)?

[Xiaolongnu]

pran, on 2013-February-01, 02:46, said:

What ruling? You didn't tell which replacement call North selected or which partnership understanding existed on that replacement call (absent the IB)?

I meant is 1NT acceptable as a replacement call without further rectification sorry.

[Coelacanth]

I don't think the meaning of 1NT is "fully contained within the possible meanings of the insufficient bid", and thus allowing 1NT under 27B1b is inappropriate. However, if the level of your game is as you describe, it's understandable and not entirely unreasonable.

On an unrelated note, I am amused by the quoted text below.

Xiaolongnu, on 2013-February-01, 00:46, said:

routinely mess up their walshness

[pran]

Xiaolongnu, on 2013-February-01, 11:39, said:

I meant is 1NT acceptable as a replacement call without further rectification sorry.

The essential question to be used as a test for the applicability of Law 27B1{b} is:

Can we find any hand with which the player (according to partnership understanding) would use the suggested replacement call in the situation, but would not have used the insufficient bid if that bid had been sufficient?

If no such hand exists then the replacement call has the same meaning as, or a more precise meaning than the insufficient bid to be replaced.

The auction

1♣ - PASS - 1♦ - 1♠
1NT

shows a hand with spade stopper(s) but possibly less than 4 cards in the suit, while the auction:

1♣ - PASS - 1♦ - PASS
1♠

shows a hand with a spade suit containing (at least) 4 spades, but none of which neccessarily qualifying as stopper in an opponents' suit.

consequently the first auction includes hands that would not have been shown with the second auction, and Law 27B1{b} is not satisfied here.

[paua]

pran, on 2013-February-01, 16:13, said:

The essential question to be used as a test for the applicability of Law 27B1{b} is:

Can we find any hand with which the player (according to partnership understanding) would use the suggested replacement call in the situation, but would not have used the insufficient bid if that bid had been sufficient?

If no such hand exists then the replacement call has the same meaning as, or a more precise meaning than the insufficient bid to be replaced.

The auction

1♣ - PASS - 1♦ - 1♠
1NT

shows a hand with spade stopper(s) but possibly less than 4 cards in the suit, while the auction:

1♣ - PASS - 1♦ - PASS
1♠

shows a hand with a spade suit containing (at least) 4 spades, but none of which neccessarily qualifying as stopper in an opponents' suit.

consequently the first auction includes hands that would not have been shown with the second auction, and Law 27B1{b} is not satisfied here.

that's a NO then ?

[akwoo]

If I'm playing at my club against two elderly half-blind ladies and this comes up, would I let them bid 1N, or would I call the director?

I'd let them bid 1N, remind them that the attempted 1S bid is UI, and let the director (who more likely than not is playing) keep playing. Frankly, I'd let them bid whatever they like unless it would be somewhat likely to cause unavoidable UI issues for their partner.

[pran]

akwoo, on 2013-February-01, 23:50, said:

If I'm playing at my club against two elderly half-blind ladies and this comes up, would I let them bid 1N, or would I call the director?

I'd let them bid 1N, remind them that the attempted 1S bid is UI, and let the director (who more likely than not is playing) keep playing. Frankly, I'd let them bid whatever they like unless it would be somewhat likely to cause unavoidable UI issues for their partner.

Me too.

[campboy]

If you want to avoid punishing opponents just accept the IB. There is no reason to go making up your own ruling and you aren't permitted to do so. What's more, if you do make up your own ruling and then eventually call the director about a UI issue he may decide you have given up all rights to rectification, particularly if he isn't satisfied that you correctly explained UI implications to your opponents.

[blackshoe]

The answer to the OP's question is "yes, this is too lenient for the director". There are some other points. The director should have explained to North that she should not say anything about what she intended her bid to mean, at least not to the table at large. In these cases, it is reasonable to take the offender away from the table and ask what she intended, and whether there is a legal call (including double) whose meaning would be a subset of the meaning of the IB, had it been sufficient. As Sven points out, 1NT does not fit the bill, so the ruling was technically "director error". Also, before the director rules on this question, he should have offered East the opportunity to accept the 1♠ bid, and told East that if he did accept it, the auction would proceed normally from that point, with no further rectification. If you want to foster an attitude in the club where these things are routinely accepted, that's fine, but you should present it to the members as general information, perhaps at the beginning of the session (or several sessions, until it sinks it). When you are making a ruling, though, you should just present the option and let the player choose.

Bottom line: careful study of Law 81B2 should inform a director of the right way to go in these situations. I.E., follow the laws.

The applicable law here would seem to be 27B2.

[iviehoff]

akwoo, on 2013-February-01, 23:50, said:

I'd let them bid 1N, remind them that the attempted 1S bid is UI, and let the director (who more likely than not is playing) keep playing. Frankly, I'd let them bid whatever they like unless it would be somewhat likely to cause unavoidable UI issues for their partner.

The UI situation is a bit curious.

Under 27B1a, it is explicitly stated that 16D does not apply, ie, the information is not UI.

Under 27B1b, there is no mention of UI, because the underlying principle of 27B1b is that the replacement bid entirely encapsulates the information of the original bid, so there is no UI from the original bid once you know the replacement one.

Now if you are letting someone get away with the change of call implicitly under 27B1b, then I think you have to go with the spirit of that and say that there is no UI, even if in reality there is. If you are starting to pick bits of 27B2 to apply, then you aren't really letting them off and it is looking a bit like negotiating the rules in the middle of the game.

[pran]

iviehoff, on 2013-February-05, 05:45, said:

[...]
Under 27B1b, there is no mention of UI, because the underlying principle of 27B1b is that the replacement bid entirely encapsulates the information of the original bid, so there is no UI from the original bid once you know the replacement one.

This is a misunderstanding that is very easily made:

The replacement call is entirely encapsulated within the original bid, not the other way round. That makes the replacement call equivalent or more precise than the original bid.

iviehoff, on 2013-February-05, 05:45, said:

Now if you are letting someone get away with the change of call implicitly under 27B1b, then I think you have to go with the spirit of that and say that there is no UI, even if in reality there is. If you are starting to pick bits of 27B2 to apply, then you aren't really letting them off and it is looking a bit like negotiating the rules in the middle of the game.

And now there is no UI because the only information that differs between the original bid and the replacement call is the information that has been deleted as relevant only from the original bid but not from the replacement call.

[WellSpyder]

pran, on 2013-February-05, 06:16, said:

This is a misunderstanding that is very easily made:

The replacement call is entirely encapsulated within the original bid, not the other way round.

I don't think there was a misunderstanding at all. There is a difference between bids being encapsulated within other bids, and the information they provide being encapsulated within the information provided by another bid.

The basic principle is that there is no UI from the first bid if all hands that would make the replacement bid would also have made the original bid. In other words, the set of hands making the replacement call is a sub-set of the set of hands making the original call. That, I think, is what you mean by the replacement call being encapsulated within the original call. But it also means that the information provided by the replacement call is more precise than that provided by the original call - in other words the information provided by the original call is entirely encapsulated within the information provided by the replacement call.

(We are only saying the same thing here, really, just in different ways.)

[iviehoff]

pran, on 2013-February-05, 06:16, said:

The replacement call is entirely encapsulated within the original bid, not the other way round. That makes the replacement call equivalent or more precise than the original bid.

But you have misread me, I referred to the encapsulation in relation to the information in the calls, not the calls. The replacement call is more precise - just that. That is why there is no UI: there is no additional information to be had from knowing the original call, precisely because there is more information in the replacement, more precise, call.

Thank you Wellspyder for agreeing with me.

[Vampyr]

WellSpyder, on 2013-February-05, 06:57, said:

I don't think there was a misunderstanding at all. There is a difference between bids being encapsulated within other bids, and the information they provide being encapsulated within the information provided by another bid.

Is there, really? What is a bid but a unit of coded information?

[Vampyr]

Xiaolongnu, on 2013-February-01, 00:46, said:

Is this ruling appropriately lenient, a little too lenient or unacceptably exceedingly lenient, in the context of this field, and in bridge in general?

It's not so much a question of leniency; the ruling was unlawful. However, as long as the game is not played under the aegis of the applicable NBO, you can IMO do what you like, just as you could at your own kitchen table.

[blackshoe]

If you purport to be running a game according to the laws of duplicate bridge, then the director of that game is, by laws 81B2 and 82A, bound to follow the laws. If you're going to run some other game, the departures from the published laws which you are going to allow should also be published.

[WellSpyder]

Vampyr, on 2013-February-05, 08:28, said:

Is there, really? What is a bid but a unit of coded information?

Well, it also potentially creates a requirement to play in the contract specified! Bidding systems aren't just about exchanging information efficiently, but also reaching a sensible contract at the end of the process...

You may be right that I was suggesting an artificial distinction between a bid and the information it provides, but I think the distinction between a bid being a sub-set of another bid, and the information it contains being greater rather than smaller, helps to explain why what appeared to pran to be a disagreement actually wasn't.

[campboy]

Suppose a player makes an insufficient bid A, it is not accepted, and he corrects it to B. The TD determines that all hands which would bid B would also be suitable for A (were it sufficient), and consequently applies 27B1b. Is there any useful information available to partner which would not have been available had the player made call B normally?

Usually, there is. Call B probably does not have exactly the same meaning as A, and if not there exist hands consistent with A which would not normally bid B. If the player has one of those hands he might decide to correct to B, even though it is inaccurate, because it is preferable to silencing partner.

Is partner allowed to use this information? (Note that a 27D adjustment does not imply that either player has done anything wrong, other than the IB itself.) I thought I had been told that the answer is "yes", but I can't find a source so maybe I am imagining things.

[gordontd]

campboy, on 2013-February-05, 13:44, said:

Suppose a player makes an insufficient bid A, it is not accepted, and he corrects it to B. The TD determines that all hands which would bid B would also be suitable for A (were it sufficient), and consequently applies 27B1b. Is there any useful information available to partner which would not have been available had the player made call B normally?

Usually, there is. Call B probably does not have exactly the same meaning as A, and if not there exist hands consistent with A which would not normally bid B. If the player has one of those hands he might decide to correct to B, even though it is inaccurate, because it is preferable to silencing partner.

Is partner allowed to use this information? (Note that a 27D adjustment does not imply that either player has done anything wrong, other than the IB itself.) I thought I had been told that the answer is "yes", but I can't find a source so maybe I am imagining things.

I wonder if you're thinking of 27B1a? When the new laws came in, Max Bavin wrote a paper about L27 which was widely circulated, in which he commented that it was general bridge knowledge that in making a 27B1a substitution, players might well distort their hand a bit in order to avoid silencing their partners. He said that this was permissible, but that 27D was there as a backstop in cases where this allowed players to reach a contract they couldn't otherwise have reached.

The most obvious example of this is when a player makes an insufficient natural bid of NT; clearly, making it sufficient will be a distortion, and there's no prohibition on using that knowledge to underbid in the subsequent auction, but you might end up with a 27D adjustment if you have gained from it.

But when it comes to 27B1b, the underlying principle of it is that there shouldn't be any more information transmitted by the combination of insufficient bid and replacement than there would have been if the replacement bid had been made initially. It is true though that a parallel with the 27B1a situation I mentioned above might exist, as you've identified, though in practice I have never seen it happen.